Erik E. Fair writes:
>
> Um, mine looks the same way, however, you're missing the point. That mount
> is a standard mount, where everything underneath the mount point (if there
> were anything) would be inaccessible. I was talking about a "union" mount
> of MFS on top of a CD-ROM FS where everything on the CD-ROM would still be
> accessible. How would you express that? I think I might need new options
> for mount_mfs...
>
Ok, that's got nothing to do with unionfs. That's a mount option
(that may or may not work for different fstypes?).
Yes, it's silly and confusing that they're called the same thing.
I've been suggesting the filesystem be renamed "onionfs" for a long
time. I was thinking about peeling layers at the time, but the fact
that it's so full of bugs as to make you cry is also a good reason for
the name :)
--
Dan.